Actually, UDE has already solved this one with other cards. Superman would be Alien - Energy with a reference to Physical in his text box, or vice versa.

I like the idea of reusing Physical/Energy/Mental traits, but I am not so hot on adding more traits in place of Mutant because I think it becomes too much to reference. [EDIT] Of course, if it is done more for flavor than for mechanics, then I see no problem with using as many classes as you wnat./[EDIT]

The only two traits I would like to see added to the game are: Hero and Villain. These two traits could allow them to reduce some teamstamped effects while limiting the use of some generic plot twists. Team-ups along the lines of Hard-Traveling Heroes could be created for Villains and for Heroes and open a wide range of synergy between DC, Marvel, and any other properties that UDE picks up.

I think that Energy, Physical, and Mental are broad enough to capture most characters. Not every character needs to have such a trait, but characters without these traits would need to compensate fo rthe lack of access to plot twists. (This provides a nice design space for balancing traits vs. no traits and more powerful effects.)

-Mike

QFH*

*humor

erick - I really like this idea. Rep coming your way.

The more I think about this, it creates a 3-D matrix between team, mechanics, and traits that could be used to link characters, sets, and deck construction themes (themes existing separately from archetypes).

-Mike

I actually have to disagree with this.

Traits like "Alien" and "Robot" make a kind of literal sense to me. They're fun, and they make the synergy more fun. (I would feel much more amused taking advantage of Aquaman/Submariner Atlantean +s or Robot-Man/Ultron +s than I would about just putting together "good guys")

Diving characters directly up into the equivilant of "These are the Good Guys" and "These are the Bad Guys", to me, seems ... I don't want to use the word "annoying", but it's in that direction.

I think traits should be more specific to what they are, not just simplistic black and white moral judgements on whether they are a "Hero" or "Villian". Mutant is a literal grouping, not a random judgemental one - they ARE mutants. I think it's only fair that the same be applied to, for example, Aliens or Magical Beings, which are the same type of categorizations.

(Joke: Are you a Hero, a Villian, or a Mutant?)

I don't think it's too much to reference because traits are inherently only relevant when referred to. "Is this guy a Mutant? Nope, he's a Robot. If I play this plot-twist on him, he won't get the Mutant Bonus". That seems relatively simple to me.

Although I don't think that alot of the Magic analogies people try to use translate directly, I think that that the following one does. As far as "too much to referrence" ... Trait = Creature-Type. That seems like a direct parallel to me.

Just in context, heroes and villains approach problems in the same way, and this trait could support that. Also, some people are borderline and wouldn't get either trait.

Killing, torturing, etc. is not really in character for heroes while these tactics are spot-on for villains. Let's take Finishing Move and breakdown for an approriate way to produce a similar effect that is in flavor for heroes and then villains:

The Slab - Exhaust a Heroic character you control -> Shuffle target stunned character into its owners deck and gain 2 endurance.

Killing Joke - Exhaust a Villainous character you control -> KO target stunned character with a lower cost than the character you exhausted. That character's controller loses endurance equal to the character's cost.

Also, the number of classes already listed in this thread would exceed the ability to support them properly for a long time especially if support spent more time focusing on traits (Energy, Physical, Mental). Hero/Villain is a very limited subset of classes that fits all comic properties and could be supported easily.

-Mike

Personally I think that this could make toolbox-type decks too strong unless design was kept very strict which I really can't see happening.

Here's the question than ... what still qualifies as Tool-boxing?

If you're taking advantage of the Atlantean trait, and your deck is full of the Atlanteans (Sub-Mariner, Namorita, Dorma, ect.), using an intended card mechanic ... is that really "toolboxing"? That's not a deck full of random 1-of characters to deal with metagame-related situations, that's a deck full of characters who fit a theme, even a logical in-character theme in that case.

I guess what it really comes down to then is design. Do designers start assigning abilities according to these traits or by team as they have since the start of the game? Or is it somewhere in the middle? This would drastically change the team-affiliation part of the game.

In my initial model, the focus would be on Traits more than Classes. As I've said earlier, Classes are more for IP flavor whereas Traits are for archetype/mechanic flavor. This also builds on X-Men where effects are based on Traits.

In order to simplify the process for not only the players but also the designers, I would probably go with the lowest common denominators for both types to start, for example:

Classes:
Human (DC/Marvel)
Mutant (Marvel)
Metahuman (DC)
Other (I realize this can be broken in to a few other Classes but I'm trying to keep it simple)

Traits:
Energy
Physical
Mental
Mystical (this could encompass Magic and Element powers)[NonSuperTrait] (Expert, Genius, Master?)

As for toolboxing... aren't players already doing that anyways? Why not facilitate it to open up deck construction to make more cards viable? Look at High Voltage and New School... they are built around a theme even though there are disparate characters in the build.

But back to simplicity and ability to appropriately use classes, as an exercise, how would we apply this to the main characters right now?

Superman (we went over)
Spider-Man
Batman
Wolverine (hey... he's the most recognizeable X-character)
Wonder Woman
Ghost Rider (this is not a main character... just wondering since his movie just came out)
Hellboy (just since it was an EC)

Just as a fun note, there actually is a small group of officially "mutant" DC characters (in line with Marvel Mutants), including Captain Comet and the Doom Patrol's own Joshua Clay <> Tempest.

What I'm trying to get at is that this would fundamentally change the game. With this there would no longer be a need for teams which is one of the main elements that the game was designed on. Maybe I'm just a purest since I've been playing since the begining but I still don't see any way that this could be done w/out completely eliminating the need for teams.

I don't see why.

Traits are inherently less useful than team affiliations. Having the same trait doesn't allow you to team-attack, or reinforce, or really ANYTHING except what a specific card makes it relevant for. When the designers can directly control what relevance is given to any trait by any card, I think immediately saying "This will eliminate the need for teams" is jumping the gun quite a bit.

Let's start off at the bottom - all the Atlantean characters are given the Atlantean trait from now on and a single combat-pump is printed that gives a bonus if used on an Atlantean character. Did that eliminate the need for teams in the game?

I concede my stoopidity.
But think of this; these traits, classes, whatever, would be added to all new cards, right? So no older cards would be usable with any new cards that reference the traits. Yes, not all new cards need to refence the traits necessarily but the ones that did would be dead with older cards that had no traits. Also it would add a definate complexity to the game, and is that what's really needed right now? Will that get more people into the game?

MTG had no problem retroactively adding Creature types to their older sets via errata. I don't see why this would be an issue for UDE (in regards to Traits)....probably a bigger issue for players who are too lazy to look up the erratas.

We've already got that, though, by the fact that teams are almost entirely either heroic or villainous. "Heroic" teams get lifegain, reinforcement and defensive effects; "villainous" teams get burn, KO and the like. This is one area where I don't see the need to formalize it with traits.